Drug Czar Bullying Seattle Times

[Tony Aroma]

Whatever happened to free speech? Now the federal government is pressuring a newspaper to change their pro-legalization stance.

White House Requests Meeting with Seattle Times to Bully Against Pro-Pot Editorials

The Stranger has learned that immediately after the Seattle Times ran an editorial last week supporting a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, the newspaper got a phone call from Washington, D.C. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske wanted to fly to Seattle to speak personally with the paper's full editorial board.

The meeting is scheduled for next Friday, an apparent attempt by the federal government to pressure the state's largest newspaper to oppose marijuana legalization. Or at least turn down the volume on its new-found bullhorn to legalize pot.

Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial writer who wrote the unbylined piece, says the White House called right “right after our editorial ran, so I drew the obvious conclusion… he didn’t like our editorial.”

“MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed,” the newspaper wrote on February 18. “The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington."

This isn't the first time the Obama Administration has campaigned to keep pot illegal. Kerlikowske, who is also Seattle's former police chief, also traveled to California last fall to campaign against Prop 19, a measure to decriminalize marijuana and authorize jurisdictions to tax and regulate it.

Is the Seattle Times the more reticent to speak up? Apparently not. It ran another pro-pot editorial in today’s paper.

Kerlikowske's office has not yet responded to a request for comment.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...orial-board-to-bully-against-pro-pot-articles

 

[David762]

Well, now that you asked, "Yes, free speech is dead." At least as far as the prohibitionists are concerned. I don't know who exactly owns the Seattle Times, but obviously they are not owned by the 5 - 6 major corporations that own most of MSM, because they certainly aren't following the Corporatist "party line". You can be pretty certain that the editor in question, the senior newspaper staff, and maybe even the Seattle Times itself is due for some extra special attention from the IRS. That's how a Police State operates ...

 

[Tony Aroma]

Urge the Seattle Times to live-stream Drug Czar meeting

Urge the Seattle Times to live-stream Drug Czar meeting

MPP was pleased to see The Seattle Times' recent editorial calling on the Washington legislature to tax and regulate marijuana for adults in the state.

We subsequently learned that Gil Kerlikowske, the Drug Czar, had immediately requested a meeting with The Seattle Times editorial board after reading the editorial. We are shocked that he is planning to spend taxpayer dollars to travel to Seattle in an effort to have the board reconsider its position.

Putting our shock aside, MPP sees this as an educational opportunity. The people of the United States deserve to know how their elected officials are using their money. They also deserve to know what the Drug Czar says behind closed doors to defend a system that is truly causing far more harm than good. With all of this in mind, MPP respectfully requests that The Seattle Times editorial board live-stream this meeting, so that we are able to participate virtually in the conversation. Would you like to see the board live-stream this meeting? If so, please enter your information below to demonstrate the real support for this petition, which we will present to The Seattle Times editorial board. Thanks for your support!

http://control.mpp.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3951

 

[medwa]

Well, now that you asked, "Yes, free speech is dead." At least as far as the prohibitionists are concerned. I don't know who exactly owns the Seattle Times, but obviously they are not owned by the 5 - 6 major corporations that own most of MSM, because they certainly aren't following the Corporatist "party line". You can be pretty certain that the editor in question, the senior newspaper staff, and maybe even the Seattle Times itself is due for some extra special attention from the IRS. That's how a Police State operates ...

Family-owned and Independent

The Seattle Times is the largest locally and family-owned and operated metropolitan newspaper in the United States. For over a century, the newspaper has been under the continuous ownership of the Blethen family. It was founded in 1896 by Colonel Alden J. Blethen, [. . .] Today, under the guidance of the fourth generation of Blethens, more than 1.5 million people read The Seattle Times over the course of each week, making it the region's most widely read daily newspaper.

 

[merlin123]

Lived in Seattle most of my life and we are free thinking folk. Thumbs up for the Times for not backing down.

 

[Cheeb]

wow...


Maybe somebody should let them know they aint stopping cannabis...regardless of how many people they kill or meetings they hold...

The people have spoken - legal or not - cannabis isnt going anywhere.

 

[iBogart]

Stick it to the man every way you can.

 

[Nirvana_Papaya]

Shame that Gil turned out the way he did. When he got picked, everyone was so excited, because he was working in Seattle when the lowest priority law was voted in, and he seemed to support it. But he lost his balls somewhere along the way.

 

[Corpsey]

i thought he was cool with weed....

check him out here:

 

[ddrew]

Go Seattle Times!!!

And Fuck You gil

 

[RoachClip]

People who believe in the right to express the freedom of speech stand in the front row and stand tall and mutha phukers like this turd hide behind the dumpster pointing fingers trying to rip us a new asshole, but we ain't going anywhere you piece of shizzit gil

 

[David762]

Thanks for the Heads-Up, Tony Aroma!

Thanks for the Heads-Up, Tony Aroma!

http://control.mpp.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3951

Signed & delivered to Seattle Times, then found that "additional 17 things you can do" message from MPP.

If enough people here pitch in, we might actually be like a fly on the wall at Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske's "private" meeting with the Seattle Times editorial board. I can hardly wait ...

 

[CaptainTrips]

Shame that Gil turned out the way he did. When he got picked, everyone was so excited, because he was working in Seattle when the lowest priority law was voted in, and he seemed to support it. But he lost his balls somewhere along the way.

Doesn't matter who you install as drug czar, or really any czar... There all the same.

 

[merlin123]

All in the pockets of big pharma.

 

[vta]

The Seattle Times...I like it!

The Seattle Times...I like it!

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Norm Stamper
Note: Norm Stamper, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
(www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com), was a police officer for 34 years,
serving as Seattle's chief of police from 1994-2000. He is the author
of "Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing."


TIME FOR A REAL SHIFT IN U.S. DRUG POLICY

AS a retired police officer who worked for more than three decades to enforce our country's failed criminal-justice approach to drug policy, I was delighted to hear President Obama recently say, "We have to think more about drugs as a public-health problem."

The White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who like me is a former Seattle police chief, followed up on his boss's comments, writing on Huffington Post, "We cannot arrest or incarcerate our way out of a problem this complex."

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's drug-control budgets don't quite match the rhetoric. This president, to date, has maintained a Bush-era budget ratio that devotes twice as many resources to arrests and punishment as it does for treatment and prevention.

Despite the president's assertion that a more effective drug policy requires "shifting resources," he simply hasn't done it. And, realistically, it will be next to impossible to find the resources unless we end the so-called "war on drugs," stop arresting drug users and move toward some form of legalized regulation.

It is difficult to treat something as a medical problem when it is also a crime. In most states, people risk being arrested if they call 911 to report a drug overdose. And as the president points out, "It may take six months for you to get into a drug-treatment program. If you're trying to kick a habit and somebody says to you, 'come back in six months,' that's pretty discouraging."

Imagine how we could improve access to drug-treatment programs with the $77 billion in savings and new revenue Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates the legalization and taxation of drugs would create.

But our current drug policy is a nightmare even if we don't take budgetary resources into account.

Prohibition leads to widespread violence as drug gangs fight over turf to sell plants for fortunes. Gangs and cartels make an estimated $500 billion a year in drug sales, giving them power that can bring countries to the brink of collapse.

Think of Mexico, where more than 34,000 have been murdered in illegal drug-market clashes over the past four years, and where police officers face the real-world choice of "silver or lead" ( in other words: take the bribe or be assassinated ).

When I started in policing, a 1-ton seizure was front-page news. Today, it is routine. Law enforcement sweeps up dozens if not hundreds of people at a time for trafficking. But it does nothing more than create job openings for those willing to take risks for the chance at huge, tax-free profits.

Prohibition also fills our prisons with largely poor and minority drug offenders who, upon release, have great difficulty finding employment after serving long mandatory minimum sentences. It shouldn't be a surprise that many end up back in the situations that got them in trouble in the first place.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not asking you to feel sorry for drug dealers. This is a public-safety crisis that affects us all. Consider that in the U.S. nearly four of 10 murders, six of 10 rapes and nine of 10 burglaries go unsolved, thanks in large part to our policies that force police to chase drugs.

Thankfully, the Obama administration appears to have begun to realize that prohibition is not working. Last month, in response to a question from one of my law-enforcement colleagues, the president called legalization "an entirely legitimate topic for debate," even though he personally remains opposed.

It's great to see Obama putting this topic on the table for discussion, especially since just two short years ago, drug czar Kerlikowske declared that legalization was in neither his nor the president's vocabulary.

While the administration's evolving rhetoric is welcome, what is needed is a real shifting of drug policy resources away from punishment and toward treatment.

A fundamental change in drug policy seems daunting, but we've done it before with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Today, you no longer see gangs shooting each other over beer and liquor market share. And both the president and Kerlikowske have compared drug use to cigarettes, pointing to the success of public-education campaigns in reducing the number of smokers.

But have they forgotten that we have not sent one person to jail for smoking Marlboros? If we can successfully manage alcohol and tobacco under a public-health model, we can do the same for all other drugs.

Our country and the rest of the world would be a much safer, healthier place if the president and his drug czar would only match their actions to their words, if they would actually treat substance abuse as a health problem, and if they would work to end drug prohibition and the drug war.

 

[vta]

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Ryan Blethen


LEGALIZING CANNABIS: HIGH TIME FOR A SOBER DISCUSSION ABOUT MARIJUANA

It is rare we publish an editorial on a hot topic and receive near universal praise. But that is what happened last week when we came out in support of Washington state legalizing cannabis.

The fact that a lot of people support the drug being legal is not surprising. Most people I know have long supported legalization of marijuana.

Knowing people who support it and public opinion about a newspaper supporting it are different things.

When people take the time to e-mail or call me about an editorial, it is usually because they do not agree with the editorial page. This editorial was different. The compliments rolled in, the discussion in the comments section of the editorial is nearing 600 and is interesting and thoughtful -- which is not always the case -- and so far the editorial has been recommended by about 3,000 people on Facebook.

Those numbers are nice to see, but only a minor part of the story. What the editorial has shown is that a broad cross-section of Washingtonians supports legalizing cannabis, or at least are ready to discuss the issue seriously.

Legalizing would put Washington out in front. We would be the first state to make the drug legal and regulate it. This would put us at odds with federal law -- something we considered. Through our internal discussions this opposition to federal law became a point in favor of endorsing legalization. We believe it is the right thing to do, so why not lead the county?

The possibility of a positive response is not why we voiced our support for Seattle Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson's bill to legalize cannabis. Any decent editorial page is going to take unpopular stands or endorse politicians or issues that rile readership. I still hear from readers fuming about The Seattle Times' endorsement of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. ( I was not here then but am certain the editorial board was not smoking anything. )

How did we get to the point of supporting the legalization of a drug? Like any big decision or change of opinion, it was a process. This process started more than a year ago when I brought the issue up with the publisher. He was intrigued, but clearly not comfortable with the idea.

My argument was that the war against marijuana was a loser. It is a drain on law-enforcement resources and precious government funds. I also pointed out that by legalizing cannabis it cuts off a major source of funds for cartels and gangs.

From there we set about researching the topic. Some on the editorial board had worries about it being a gateway drug and about the effects on children. My counter was that if a teenager really wants pot, he or she is going to find a way to get it regardless of its legality. Just like alcohol. By regulating cannabis, it removes those under 18 from the presence of drug dealers, who, because it is their business, often have other kinds of drugs they can push on their young customers.

Another factor that played heavily in the decision is the outsize punishments for relatively small amounts of marijuana.

Enter Dickerson's bill. It dovetailed nicely with our yearlong internal examination of the issue. The publisher was comfortable with the decision so I gave editorial writer Bruce Ramsey the green light.

As far as I can tell, The Times is one of the few metropolitan newspapers to push for legal cannabis. That does not mean we are alone. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a piece below about regulating illicit drugs. Stamper is not a lone voice in law enforcement believing that the dollars spent in the futile effort to eradicate drugs would be better used for treatment.

It is high time this country had a sober discussion about marijuana. Because what we are doing now is not working. Washington state's Legislature could lead the discussion by passing Dickerson's bill.

 

[Deft]

They really need to live stream or tape the meeting and show it online.

I am really interested to see what he says.

 

[David762]

Absolutely!

Absolutely!

They really need to live stream or tape the meeting and show it online.

I am really interested to see what he says.

Live streaming the Drug Czar's "prohibition pitch" to the Seattle Times editorial staff would be nice -- but having a videographer post this event on YouTube would be awesome.

I want to see every twitch, pause, and eye-blink or "thousand yard" stare of the Drug Czar when he lies his ass off to the Times staff, that and every tonal inflection. I have no doubt that there will be academic experts available to review the video who can point out every time Kerlikowske knowingly spews falsehoods.

Remember, folks. The job description of Drug Czar includes lying to the public in order to maintain this fascist government's cannabis persecution, at taxpayer's expense no less ...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske's son is a Former Drug addict.

 

[schwagg]

National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske's son is a Former Drug addict.

surely not from pot.... maybe that's why they need to focus on tweakers.